Re: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs
Chill, willya? At the point I replied, you had not yet written that post, nor linked the Szabo post.
Let’s back up a notch. Is it axiomatic in your estimation that the world would benefit from the existence of Nash ideal money? Simple yes or no will do here – I can work with that as a foundation.
Why is it that bitcoin be used to fulfill this role (or the role of a best-effort approximation of Nash ideal money)? If you mean ‘relatively stable in value’, then please use that term. Otherwise you seem to be saying that ‘gold does not possess gold-like qualities’, which is confusing.
Is this the ‘history lesson’ you are referring to to illustrate why gold failed in this role?:
It seems to me that the assertion is that gold would not again be able to fulfill this role (note that this is not the same as ‘why did it fail to begin with’) because (i) new technologies were invented that caused supply instabilities. There seems to be an implication that a simple decree can prevent technological advances from being applied to bitcoin. Do I understand that correctly?
Is it your assertion that the reasons “few would propose a return to the actual use of simply the metal gold as a standard” are identical to the reason gold failed in this role to begin with?
Ideal Money signals the levation of a stable metric of value. This is the most significant technology conceived to date. We will have it soon. It is need to optimize the markets, read hayek, he’ll tell. all this is linked to in this thread and cited. You don’t tell me to answer yes or no.
Nash’s argument is premised on bitcoin as a gold, with the definition of gold he uses.
I use relative because its relevant to what is needed as a catalyst: the introduction of something relatively stable, ie better than the alternatives, but not necessarily perfectly stable.
So you just need something better than gold (if gold is otherwise the best), it doesn’t have to be perfectly stable. Gold failed as a defacto peg with the bretton woods and ended at the nixon shock. Why should i teach you history? Issac Newton pegged the british pound to gold and it was a good thing and he had cosmological revelations also.
Yes we can decree bitcoin into gold, with intelligence and rational argument. We cannot decree it into a coffee money, it won’t happen and it will kill its gold like properties.
The network tries to produce one block per 10 minutes. It does this by automatically adjusting how difficult it is to produce blocks.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
Increasing tps, even by a 2MB blocksize increase, does not violate its “gold properties”. It would not be a contract breach nor an immoral act since it was never intended to restrict tps forever.
It would require a hardfork with high consensous, yes, but don’t go as far to say it would be a violation of the “social contract”. That would be incorrect.
No you are wrong. it was never going to be scaled this quote Satoshi I dare. It doesn’t matter that Satoshi tricked you and you are sad. There is no reason to scale. No reason to scale NO REASON TO SCALE. NO REASON.
NONE.
ITS NOT HAPPENING.
1mb1mb1mb1mb1mb1mb
intended or not, the vast majority of investors agreed to a blocksize limit, because that is what the code (contract) says. It is a generally accepted principle that failure to read and understand a contract is no excuse. And anyway, this issue was known about and publically discussed as far back as 2010. I certainly became aware of it within a month of getting involved with btc, back in 2013 and have made decisions based on this knowledge.
now one can make an interesting point that for a very few individuals (Roger Ver may be one of these I’m not sure) that invested before the blocksize cap was put in place, there has already been a breach of contract, when satoshi added it. That is unfortunate indeed, and I would argue that it highlights the moral hazard of changing consensus code.
Increasing tps, even by a 2MB blocksize increase, does not violate its “gold properties”. It would not be a contract breach nor an immoral act since it was never intended to restrict tps forever.
It would require a hardfork with high consensous, yes, but don’t go as far to say it would be a violation of the “social contract”. That would be incorrect.
Gold properties are gold properties.
TPS can affect value, but it only does so speculatively for future possibilities and not as an inherent property of the currency itself.
would you argue that the gold properties of a gold bar was hurt/ruined/altered when humans transferred those bars from a horse and carts compared to when they done so years latter by boats, cars, and planes?
I think no scaling ever will never be agreed to nor entertained.
When we talk about gold’s property we are specifically referring to its fairly stable value. The old is your admission of my truth.
Your question is answered here:
Metcalfe’s Law states that a value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of its nodes. In an area where good soils, mines, and forests are randomly distributed, the number of nodes valuable to an industrial economy is proportional to the area encompassed. The number of such nodes that can be economically accessed is an inverse square of the cost per mile of transportation. Combine this with Metcalfe’s Law and we reach a dramatic but solid mathematical conclusion: the potential value of a land transportation network is the inverse fourth power of the cost of that transportation. A reduction in transportation costs in a trade network by a factor of two increases the potential value of that network by a factor of sixteen. While a power of exactly 4.0 will usually be too high, due to redundancies, this does show how the cost of transportation can have a radical nonlinear impact on the value of the trade networks it enables. This formalizes Adam Smith’s observations: the division of labor (and thus value of an economy) increases with the extent of the market, and the extent of the market is heavily influenced by transportation costs (as he extensively discussed in his Wealth of Nations).
The cost of transportation effects the value of the network.
Your conclusion follows your false premise
So your belief is, that bitcoin should be artificially restricted to its current form for eternity, otherwise it will lose value as tps increases. You think mass adoption whether by the masses or by the world financial systems can only occur (if it ever does) by keeping tps extremely low. Increasing tps, whether by on chain or off chain actually prevents adoption.
I do not use this username (AgentofCoin) on any other forum or website. Ask for a signed message from my btc address if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
intended or not, that is what the vast majority of investors agreed to, because that is what the code (contract) says. It is a generally excepted principle that failure to read and understand a contract is no excuse. And anyway, this issue was known about and publically discussed as far back as 2010. I certainly became aware of it within a month of getting involved with btc, back in 2013 and have made decisions based on this knowledge.
now one can make an interesting point that for a very few individuals (Roger Ver may be one of these I’m not sure) that invested before the blocksize cap was put in place, there has already been a breach of contract, when satoshi added it. That is unfortunate indeed, and I would argue that it highlights the moral hazard of changing consensus code.
this is one argument and the real argument is that if i bring the rational path to the table, that was the path all along that the market knew of, because the markets god and all knowing. Thats the real economic truth. The rest is whining, from whiners that haven’t read any books.
Increasing tps, even by a 2MB blocksize increase, does not violate its “gold properties”. It would not be a contract breach nor an immoral act since it was never intended to restrict tps forever.
It would require a hardfork with high consensous, yes, but don’t go as far to say it would be a violation of the “social contract”. That would be incorrect.
No you are wrong. it was never going to be scaled this quote Satoshi I dare. It doesn’t matter that Satoshi tricked you and you are sad. There is no reason to scale. No reason to scale NO REASON TO SCALE. NO REASON.
NONE.
ITS NOT HAPPENING.
1mb1mb1mb1mb1mb1mb
Satoshi placed the 1MB cap not as a economic parametr, but to prevent a spam attack vector in its early life.
I do not use this username (AgentofCoin) on any other forum or website. Ask for a signed message from my btc address if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
intended or not, that is what the vast majority of investors agreed to, because that is what the code (contract) says. It is a generally excepted principle that failure to read and understand a contract is no excuse. And anyway, this issue was known about and publically discussed as far back as 2010. I certainly became aware of it within a month of getting involved with btc, back in 2013 and have made decisions based on this knowledge.
now one can make an interesting point that for a very few individuals (Roger Ver may be one of these I’m not sure) that invested before the blocksize cap was put in place, there has already been a breach of contract, when satoshi added it. That is unfortunate indeed, and I would argue that it highlights the moral hazard of changing consensus code.
Increasing tps, even by a 2MB blocksize increase, does not violate its “gold properties”. It would not be a contract breach nor an immoral act since it was never intended to restrict tps forever.
It would require a hardfork with high consensous, yes, but don’t go as far to say it would be a violation of the “social contract”. That would be incorrect.
The vast majority of investors can go to hell. No one cares about what they say, unless they run a node.
Contract law does not apply to this argument, especially within unregulated decentralized systems.
I do not use this username (AgentofCoin) on any other forum or website. Ask for a signed message from my btc address if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
Seems to me that anyone that wishes to change any of bitcoin’s core properties including blocksize limit can go to hell. ie, aint gonna happen.
have fun moaning and bitching about it though…
The vast majority of investors can go to hell. No one cares about what they say, unless they run a node.
Contract law does not apply to this argument, especially within unregulated decentralized systems.
Legendary Online
Activity: 1610
trainscarwreck weeks ago you were stating bitcoin was ideal money and Nash was satoshi.. now your saying bitcoin is not and cant be ideal money
if bitcoin never has been and never can be ideal money. why should we suddenly stop developing bitcoin and do as you say and do nothing more.
if it never is was will be nashes ideal money. then it doesnt matter..
just accept that bitcoin is not Nashes ideal money.. but also accept that bitcoin can be something else. something new
beyond the scope of your king nash
I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER. Don’t take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.
BTC-ECHO New York: Generalstaatsanwalt ermittelt für mehr Sicherheit Eric Schneiderman befragt 13 Handelsplattformen für Kryptowährungen. Der Generalstaatsanwalt aus New York hat sich mit einem Fragen-Katalog an die Plattformen gewandt. Die Auswertung der Antworten soll dazu […]
You, Me, and BTC T-Dawg – YMB Podcast E267 This is episode 267 of You, Me, and BTC – your liberty and bitcoin podcast. Please enjoy this special episode. Your host this week is Tim […]
Startup Raises $3.9 Million in Tokenized Equity on London Stock Exchange Platform Startup Raises $3.9 Million in Tokenized Equity on London Stock Exchange Platform ⋆ Crypto New Media Home 2019 April 15 News Startup Raises […]
